DUIDocument Actions
California DUI Library
California DUI News, Articles and Laws.
State Legislators Consider California DUI Bill
Senate measure would lower blood alcohol content for mandatory ignition interlock device.
The Senate Public Safety Committee of the California legislature is debating a bill that would lower the level of intoxication leading to an ignition interlock device. The current .20% blood alcohol content would be lowered to .16%. Motorists convicted of drinking and driving in California with the new BAC would be required to install interlock devices in every vehicle available to them. The devices would have to remain in the vehicles for 1-3 years, depending on the circumstances of the DUI. Motorists with previous arrests for driving under the influence in California or those arrested for driving with a suspended license would receive a longer sentence.
The bill states that the return of a motorist’s driver’s license would be contingent upon the documented installation of an ignition interlock device.
If you have been arrested for Driving Under the Influence in California you will need to hire a qualified California DUI attorney.
Labor Day DUI Arrests Up in Bay Area
Bay Area sees increase in drunk driving arrests over 2007 Labor Day Holiday.
Santa Clara County law enforcement agencies recorded a notable increase in California DUI arrests over the 2007 Labor Day Holiday. California Highway Patrol Officer Mike Wright said, “one of the reasons arrests are going up is that law enforcement is able to throw in more resources.”
The increased patrol presence in the Bay Area yielded more DUI arrests in the first three days of the holiday than the entire holiday arrest total for 2006.
If you have been arrested for drunk driving you will need a California DUI Lawyer.
License Suspension Refusal Goes Before CA Supreme Court
The California Supreme Court will use a San Mateo County case to decide whether a suspected drunken driver can have her license suspended for refusing to be tested for alcohol even if police never saw her driving.
All seven justices voted Wednesday to review Terry Troppman's appeal of her one-year license suspension. The court will hold a hearing at a future date Troppman was spotted by a Belmont police officer slumped in the driver's seat of a parked van in January 2003. She failed field sobriety tests and admitted she had been drinking from a wine bottle found in the van, but testified later that she had pulled over and parked before starting to drink. She was unable to complete a breath test and refused to take a blood test, according to court records.
Under California law, anyone who drives a car implicitly agrees to submit to a test for alcohol or face a license suspension. In upholding Troppman's suspension by the Department of Motor Vehicles, a state Court of Appeal panel in San Francisco ruled in February that the requirement covers any case in which police reasonably suspect the person had been driving while drunk.
To go further and require proof that the person had actually been driving "would undermine the policy goals of encouraging cooperation in testing and deterring of drunk driving,'' said Justice William McGuiness.
But Troppman's lawyer, John Halley, said in a Supreme Court appeal that implicit in the law is a requirement that authorities show proof of actual driving, because "it is the act of driving from which consent (to be tested) is implied.'' The case is Troppman vs. Gourley, S13249.
DRUNK DRIVING - LICENSE SUSPENSION - NO EVIDENCE OF DRIVING REQUIRED
Troppman v. Gourley (2005) Cal.App.4th , 05 C.D.O.S. 1190 First Dist., 2/8/05, A105287
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT - DIVISION THREE (PDF Download)
License of suspected drunk driver may be suspended or revoked for refusal to submit to chemical test even in absence of finding that person was actually driving a car at the time of the offense. Follows its prior decision in Rice v. Pierce (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1460, and declines to follow Jackson v. Pierce (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 964 (from the Fifth).
Use Note: the driver in this case was slumped over the wheel of a stopped car, and was the only occupant. I think the result would be different if a drunken licensee was being driven home by a designated driver. Here the arresting officer had reasonable cause to believe licensee had been driving.
By Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, May 20, 2005
Are you in need of a California DUI Attorney?
Ads for Latinos Attacked
Alcohol Ads for Latinos Attacked: Rules Sought Like Those for Cigarettes
Promoting liquor in Latino neighborhoods is like pouring gasoline on smoldering embers, a coalition of health and community groups said Thursday, as it called for marketing standards similar to those for tobacco.
Aggressive, multimillion-dollar alcohol advertising campaigns geared toward Latinos exacerbates a community already disproportionately plagued by social ails, said Edwardo Hernandez, author of a report presented by CalPartners Coalition.
"A substantial number of Latinos are dying because of substantial alcohol use," said Hernandez.
At stake is one of the nation's fastest growing populations: Latino youths, who will have a dramatic effect on public health, schools and criminal justice, he said. Advertising seems to soak in at an early, vulnerable age, said Hernandez, noting a Corona beer campaign that insists it is the "Drinko for Cinco."
The group launched its report to counter Cinco de Mayo celebrations around the state where, at some, drunken brawls have eclipsed cultural significance.
Attention from public health leaders, legislators and the industry would create more responsible marketing and sales in the way that public outrage curbed cigarette advertising in recent years, the coalition contends.
"We have a lot to learn from our friends in the tobacco industry," said Mark Capitolo, spokesman for the coalition.
Industry giant Anheuser-Busch Co. markets to influence adults' brand choice, said spokesman Louis Deleon in a written statement. The ads are as diverse as the marketplace, he said.
"To suggest that people of a certain ethnic origin should be protected from certain types of advertising is elitist, condescending and insulting." The company works with Latino-owned advertising agencies to develop culturally sensitive campaigns, he said.
Yet the trend among Latinos runs counter to drinking habits among other ethnic groups, burdening Latinos with a greater share of alcohol-related health problems, Hernandez said.
Between 1984 to 1995, heavy drinking dropped from 20 percent to 12 percent among whites, but edged up among Latinos from 17 percent to 18 percent during the same time, according to a Public Health Institute study.
Specifically, four out of 10 Mexican Americans with alcohol-related problems, like liver disease, die before 50, but only three out of 10 whites with alcohol problems die that young, according to a study published in Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Science.
Latinos must examine traditional drinking habits, some imported from homelands, Hernandez conceded, such as heavy drinking tied to religious ceremonies. And though Latinos drink less frequently than other ethnic groups, when they do they drink more, said Hernandez, citing several government studies.
"They may not be aware that bringing home a six-pack is part of the problem," Capitolo said.
But changing the flow of liquor would be like swimming upstream if marketing strategies are not changed, said Hernandez.
Liquor companies do invest in their markets, offering scholarships and financial support of community events, he said. But organizations should re-consider donations linked to sales of the product, coalition members said.
Centro Guadalupe in Sacramento, a coalition member and Cinco de Mayo fete sponsor, turned down liquor industry money with few sacrifices, said center director Sylvia Villalobos. "Somehow, we got taken care of OK."
By M.E. Enkoji Bee Staff Writer
(Published March 27, 1998)
Are you in need of a California DUI Attorney?
California Laws: High Fines for No Insurance
If you are caught with a DUI and no insurance, you need a California DUI Attorney.
Got Insurance? Now Prove It - Drivers Without Coverage Face Hefty Fines
By Arthur M. Louis, Chronicle Staff Writer
Although California law requires all motorists to insure their cars, an estimated 5.5 million of the 21 million vehicles registered in the state are uninsured.
But starting this year, the law got new teeth. The Legislature passed a bill requiring motorists to produce proof of insurance before the Department of Motor Vehicles will renew their registrations.
The new legislation also requires motorists to display proof of insurance when they are stopped by police officers for traffic violations. Drivers who can't do so may have to pay fines ranging from $1,350 to as high as $5,400 for repeat offenders.
The law -- which expires at the end of 1999 unless renewed by the Legislature -- was spearheaded by former Assemblywoman Jackie Speier, a Burlingame Democrat, whose husband was killed three years ago in a collision with an uninsured driver.
As a result of the law, many previously uninsured motorists are rushing to find insurance.
``We are being inundated with applications,'' remarks Peter Gorman, associate vice president of the Alliance of American Insurers, which represents 300 property-and-casualty companies.
But many other motorists -- a lot of them low-income people who claim that the cost of insurance is too burdensome -- continue to evade the law.
Some are buying counterfeit insurance cards for around $50 apiece from unscrupulous entrepreneurs, or are stealing registration stickers from other cars so they won't have to deal with the DMV.
Others get genuine insurance cards by paying the first month's premium, then cancel their policies, says Bill Sirola, a spokesman for State Farm, California's largest auto insurer.
Speier says the loophole described by Sirola crept into the law because of heavy pressure from the insurance com- panies themselves.
Her bill originally required insurance companies to notify the DMV electronically whenever an auto-insurance customer canceled coverage.
"But the insurance companies cried and complained about the `extraordinary cost,' so I took that out of the bill to keep it moving,'' Speier says.
Speier notes, however, that people who present false proof of insurance are committing a misdemeanor, punishable by suspension of their driver's license for a year.
Even some judges and police officers are flouting the new regulations.
Judges who consider the punishment too severe are letting violators off the hook, or are imposing fines and penalties well below the $1,350 minimum. And various local police forces aren't bothering to ask motorists for proof of insurance -- although the California Highway Patrol is routinely making such requests.
The new law took a lot of people by surprise, and even those who want to comply may not know how to go about it.
Here is how the law works.
When motorists renew their registration each year, they must send the DMV a photocopy of the proof-of-insurance card provided by their insurer. Or, they can display the card itself if they renew at a DMV office.
DMV spokesman Evan Nosoff said the agency prefers to have all renewals handled by mail. It is a routine transaction, he notes, and the DMV branches are crowded enough with other business.
Your insurance must meet certain legal minimums.
You must have per-accident coverage of at least $15,000 for injury to one person, $30,000 for all injuries combined and $5,000 for property damage.
As an alternative, you can demonstrate that you have enough financial resources to self-insure. This requires bonded proof that you have set aside $35,000 in cash to cover any liabilities.
Theft and collision insurance and comprehensive coverage are not required.
If you are stopped by a police officer and asked for proof of insurance, you will get a ticket if you can't produce it at that time.
However, you can have the ticket nullified by showing proof of insurance in court. You still will be assessed a $10 fee for paperwork.
Judges can impound the vehicles of frequent, flagrant violators. There is no appeal from such a decision. The driver can never get the car back, although the lender that financed the car can.
If you provide false evidence of insurance coverage and your driver's license is suspended, the suspension won't be lifted until you demonstrate genuine proof of insurance.
Filed in California DUI | Insurance / SR-22 | Permalink | Comments (0)
California Drivers Required to Use Hands Free Devices
California Requires Drivers to Use Hands Free Devices While Talking on a Mobile Phone Key proponent for the bill included Verizon Wireless the nation largest wireless communications provider.
September 15, 2006
By Sandy Meyer Copyright Sandy Meyer
Sacramento, California - California Governor Schwarzenegger has signed SB 1613 by Sen. Joseph Simitian (D-Palo Alto) that would prohibit the use of a cell phone in a moving vehicle unless the driver is using a hands free device.
SB 1613 will:
- Prohibit the use of cell phones by drivers unless the driver is using a hands-free device starting July 1, 2008.
- Allow drivers of commercial vehicles to use push-to-talk phones until July 1, 2011.
- Allow drivers to make emergency phone calls without using a hands-free device.
- Allow drivers of emergency response vehicles to use cell phone without a hands-free device.
- Prescribes that a conviction is punishable by a base fine of $20 for a first offense and $50 for each subsequent offenses.
Lobbyists for the bill included Verizon Wireless, the nation largest wireless communications provider, law enforcement agencies and local government agencies. All are projected to make a lot of money from the passage of this bill.
Simitian and Verizon had attempted to get a bill on the use of hand held cellular phones passed in 2003. They did not succeed.
Verizon also sells wireless phones with voice-activated dialing and two-way speakerphone capabilities. The 2000 merger of Verizon, Bell Atlantic and GTE created Verizon Communications.
Veriizon has also been active in lobbying for the enactment of similar legislation in other states. States where Verizon lobbied in that have enacted laws to require the use of hands free cell phone devices include Illinois and Massachusetts in 2000, New York ($100. fine) in 2001, Washington, D.C. and New Jersey in 2004, Connecticut in 2005.
In 2002 -- Verizon Wireless began a partnership with the Georgia State Patrol's Safety Education Division to promote safer and more responsible driving. The Atlanta Journal Constition reported that despite a lack of evidence that hand-held phones are more dangerous on the road than hands-free devices, or other distractions, the DeKalb County, Georgia, enacted a fine of up to $500 for drivers who cause a wreck while talking on cell phones.
The county enacted the new law despite a lack of evidence that hand-held phones are more dangerous on the road than hands-free devices, or other distractions, such as eating.
See law: http://www.ahrc.com/new/index.php/src/news/sub/article/action/ShowMedia/id/3128
Source: http://www.ahrc.com
Do you need a California DUI Attorney?
First Offense Under California DUI Law
First Offense: Completion of DUI Program and Restricted Driver's License.
13352.4. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (h), the department shall issue a restricted driver's license to a person whose driver's license was suspended under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352, if the person meets all of the following requirements:
(1) Submits proof satisfactory to the department of enrollment in, or completion of, a driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, as described in subdivision (b) of Section 23538.
(2) Submits proof of financial responsibility, as defined in Section 16430.
(3) Pays all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees and any restriction fee required by the department.
(b) The restriction of the driving privilege shall become effective when the department receives all of the documents and fees required under subdivision (a) and shall remain in effect until the final day of the original suspension imposed under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352, or until the date all reinstatement requirements described in Section 13352 have been met, whichever date is later, and may include credit for any suspension period served under subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3.
(c) The restriction of the driving privilege shall be limited to the hours necessary for driving to and from the person's place of employment, driving during the course of employment, and driving to and from activities required in the driving-under-the-influence program.
(d) Whenever the driving privilege is restricted under this section, proof of financial responsibility, as defined in Section 16430, shall be maintained for three years. If the person does not maintain that proof of financial responsibility at any time during the restriction, the driving privilege shall be suspended until the proof required under Section 16484 is received by the department.
(e) For the purposes of this section, enrollment, participation, and completion of an approved program shall be subsequent to the date of the current violation. Credit may not be given to a program activity completed prior to the date of the current violation.
(f) The department shall terminate the restriction issued under this section and shall suspend the privilege to operate a motor vehicle pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352 immediately upon receipt of notification from the driving-under-the-influence program that the person has failed to comply with the program requirements. The privilege shall remain suspended until the final day of the original suspension imposed under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352, or until the date all reinstatement requirements described in Section 13352 have been met, whichever date is later.
(g) The holder of a commercial driver's license who was operating a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in Section 15210, at the time of a violation that resulted in a suspension or revocation of the person's noncommercial driving privilege under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352 is not eligible for the restricted driver's license authorized under this section.
(h) If, upon conviction, the court has made the determination, as authorized under subdivision (d) of Section 23536 or paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 23538, to disallow the issuance of a restricted driver's license, the department may not issue a restricted driver's license under this section.
(i) This section shall become operative on September 20, 2005. Added Sec. 5, Ch. 551, Stats. 2004. Effective January 1, 2005. Operative September 20, 2005
Source: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d06/vc13352_4.htm
If it is your first DUI you will need a California DUI Attorney.
What Happens to First Offenders Under California DUI Law
Remember after January 1, 2003 ALL persons convicted of a DUI in California (23152) will be required to attend and complete a level one program (whether the court sent you to one or not!).
One question I get more than any other is "What will happen to me in the court on my first offense for DUI in California?"
If you talk to an attorney there are all sorts of variables they will consider. They usually will not give you a clear answer. After ten years of working with first offenders I can tell you within a general framework of what MOST DUI (VC23152) first offenders receive in the 10 county Bay Area.
First Offender Penalties
In Court
- $1200 fine.
- 3 years probation (informal - no probation officer).
- 3-5 days sheriff work alternative program (picking up trash, cleaning buses, etc.) OR
- 90 license restriction (to start AFTER 4 months DMV suspension is over).
- First Offender School (3/4 months long).
This is in addition to the four months immediate DMV suspension that starts 30 days after your DUI stop.
These two ACTIONS (court and DMV) are SEPARATE and do not influence one another. Many times someone gets their license back by going to the DMV hearing and then is convicted in the court. Or, the DA drops the charges and the DMV still suspends your license!
With the conviction in the court you are allowed to get a restricted license AFTER a 30 day hard suspension (after the 30 day temporary license period is over = two months after your DUI stop). This allows you to drive to and from work and in the course of your employment and to and from the DUI class. The only 'draw back' to the license restriction is that it is restricted for 5 months (they say 6 but the DMV counts the first month of suspension). OR you can ride out the 4 months suspension period and get you license back. BUT, once the court notifies the DMV that you have been convicted of a DUI or a wetreckless and as part of your probation you have been sent to a First Offender Program. The requirement to show proof of completion of the program will be added to the list of items needed (Proof of Insurance SR-22 and pay $125 to get your license returned.
Remember after January 1, 2003 ALL persons convicted of a DUI in California (23152) will be required to attend and complete a level one program (whether the court sent you to one or not!)
This is GENERALLY the way it works for those convicted of a misdemeanor first offense DUI.
If it is your first offense you will need a California DUI Lawyer.
Highway Fines Double on Hwy 4 and 37
Stiffer Fines Cut Fatalities On 2 Notorious Bay Roads
Fatal collisions and traffic citations along two of the Bay Area's most dangerous highways have plummeted since a new law imposed double fines on drivers who break traffic laws.
Motorists are slowing down on Highway 4 in Contra Costa County and Highway 37 in Solano and Sonoma counties.
Some 26 people have died in accidents on Highway 37 in the past five years; 13 have been killed on Highway 4.
So far in 1996, however, only one person has died on each highway. Both accidents involved solo vehicles in which a drunken driver lost control.
"That kind of accident can happen anywhere,'' said California Highway Patrol spokesman Cliff Kroeger, who oversees the specially designated zone of Highway 4, a four-mile stretch from Hercules near Interstate 80 to Cummings Skyway in Rodeo.
CHP officials are attributing the reduction in bad accidents on both highways in part to a law passed last year. The measure designates parts of the two highways as special driving zones in which drivers who break the rules face double the time in jail or double fines.
Speeding tickets that would normally range from $80 to $150 instead range from $160 to $300.
But the success on Highway 37 is also because of the installation of a concrete barrier along a part of the dangerous stretch and the elimination of the road's passing lanes.
"Most of the accidents occurred around the passing lanes,'' said Fred Wold, a Solano County spokesman for the CHP. ``Now drivers are restricted to driving at a moderate rate and not making any passes.''
Drivers say the barrier, which was installed on only part of the 22-mile highway, has provided a sense of security.
"You can tell that drivers seem more comfortable with that center divider. They slow down when it's gone,'' said Michelle Norman, an employee at Sears Point Raceway, who uses Highway 37 to go from her Vallejo home to work and back. She says that the road definitely seems safer.
However, the barrier has also restricted the CHP from snagging drivers who break the law, because officers no longer can make U-turns.
Highway 37 is the main thoroughfare running along San Pablo Bay connecting Marin and Sonoma counties and Highway 101 with Solano County and Interstate 80. An estimated 35,000 vehicles use the road on any given weekday.
The specially designated zones on the two highways are two lanes, one in each direction. The worst accidents, which claimed multiple victims, have been head-on or broadside collisions in which one vehicle has crossed over into one or more oncoming cars, according to the CHP.
Although no barrier has been placed on Highway 4, the median yellow-line dividers were painted on more thickly and reinforced with jagged strips that rattle tires of vehicles that veer too far to the left.
The CHP also reports issuing fewer citations this year, partly because last year it maintained intense campaigns on both roads to raise drivers' awareness of the dangers.
Last year, the CHP issued 1,557 tickets on Route 37 from January to July. This year, the number of tickets dropped to 155 for the same months.
Similarly, CHP officers wrote 308 tickets last year on Highway 4 from January to July. This year, the number dropped to 85.
By Suzanne Espinosa Solis, Chronicle East Bay Bureau
Do you need a California DUI Attorney?
Filed in California DUI | DUI Penalties & Fines | Permalink | Comments (0)
California DUI General Information
Arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in California: General Information
I've just been arrested for DUI in California. What happens now?
The officer is required by law to immediately forward a copy of the completed notice of suspension or revocation form and any driver license taken into possession, with a sworn report to the DMV. The DMV automatically conducts an administrative review that includes an examination of the officer's report, the suspension or revocation order, and any test results. If the suspension or revocation is upheld during the administrative review, you may request a hearing to contest the suspension or revocation.
You have the right to request a hearing from the DMV within 10 days of receipt of the suspension or revocation order. If the review shows there is no basis for the suspension or revocation, the action will be set aside. You will be notified by the DMV in writing only if the suspension or revocation is set aside following the administrative review.
At the time of my DUI arrest, the officer confiscated my driver license. How do I get it back?
Your driver license will be returned to you at the end of the suspension or revocation, provided you pay (on or after January 1, 2003) a $125 reissue fee to the DMV and you file proof of financial responsibility. The reissue fee remains at $100 if you were under age 21 and were suspended under the Zero Tolerance Law pursuant to Vehicle Code §23136, 13353.1, 13388, 13392. If it is determined that there is not a basis for the suspension or revocation, your driver license will be issued or returned to you.
The officer issued me an Order of Suspension and Temporary License. What am I supposed to do with this document?
You may drive for 30 days from the date the order of suspension or revocation was issued, provided you have been issued a California driver license and your driver license is not expired, or your driving privilege is not suspended or revoked for some other reason.
The Notice of Suspension that the officer gave me at the time of my arrest states I have ten days to request an administrative hearing. What is the purpose of this hearing and what can it do for me?
A hearing is your opportunity to show that the suspension or revocation is not justified.
For how long will my driving privilege be suspended if I took the chemical test?
If you are 21 years of age or older, took a blood or breath test, or (if applicable) a urine test, and the results showed 0.08% BAC or more:
A first offense will result in a 4-month suspension. A second or subsequent offense within 7 years will result in a 1-year suspension. If you are under 21 year of age, took a preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) test or other chemical test and results showed 0.01% BAC or more, your driving privilege will be suspended for 1 year.
Do I need a hearing to get a restricted license to go to and from work?
No. A request for a restricted license cannot be considered at the DMV hearing. You may apply for a restricted license to drive to and from work at any DMV field office.
The officer stated I refused to take a chemical test. What does this mean?
You are required by law to submit to a chemical test to determine the alcohol and/or drug content of your blood. You did not submit to or complete a blood or breath test after being requested to do so by a peace officer. As of January 1999, a urine test is no longer available unless:
The officer suspects you were driving under the influence of drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol, or Both the blood or breath tests are not available, or You are a hemophiliac, or You are taking anticoagulant medication in conjunction with a heart condition.
How long will my driving privilege be suspended for not taking the chemical test?
If you were 21 years of older at the time of arrest and you refused or failed to complete a blood or breath test, or (if applicable) a urine test:
- A first offense will result in a 1-year suspension.
- A second offense within 7 years will result in a 2-year revocation.
- A third or subsequent offense within 7 years will result in a 3-year revocation.
If you were under 21 years of age at the time of being detained or arrested and you refused or failed to complete a PAS test or other chemical test:
- A first offense will result in a 1-year suspension.
- A second offense within 7 years will result in a 2-year revocation.
- A third or subsequent offense within 7 years will result in a 3-year revocation.
How is the DMV suspension or revocation for the DUI arrest different from the suspension or revocation following my conviction in criminal court?
The DMV suspension or revocation is an administrative action taken against your driving privilege only. The suspension or revocation following a conviction in court is a mandatory action for which jail, fine, or other criminal penalty can be imposed.
Source: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/dl/driversafety/dsalcohol.htm
Do you need a California DUI Attorney?
In the News
